File Preview
SAT Orders - 4 Rishiraj.pdf
File: 4 Rishiraj.pdf
Court: Supreme Court of India
Job: SAT Orders
Processed: 2025-05-30 04:40:22
{ "metadata": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The appellants contended that the delay was unintentional, caused by sending the disclosure to the target company instead of the stock exchange, and that the penalty was excessive. The respondent maintained that the disclosure obligation is mandatory, and a penalty is warranted regardless of the reason for the delay.", "bench": [ "The Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice J. P. Devadhar", "The Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice A. S. Lamba" ], "case_number": [ "MA No. 95 of 2014", "Appeal No. 237 of 2014" ], "cases_referred": [], "chunkwise_data": { "chunk_1": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The appellants contended that the delay was unintentional, caused by sending the disclosure to the target company instead of the stock exchange, and that the penalty was excessive. The respondent maintained that the disclosure obligation is mandatory, and a penalty is warranted regardless of the reason for the delay.", "cases_referred": [], "facts": "The appellants made an open offer for shares of Green Earth Resources and Projects Ltd. and were required to disclose details of that offer to the stock exchange by April 12, 2012. They actually submitted the disclosure on May 14, 2012, causing a 31-day delay. An adjudication order dated April 30, 2014 imposed a penalty of four lakh rupees on the appellants. They filed an appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal contesting this penalty, which was heard at the present stage.", "final_status": "dismissed", "formatted_summary": "The appellants appealed against a penalty imposed for a 31-day delay in submitting mandatory disclosures to the stock exchange regarding their open offer. The Tribunal found the penalty neither arbitrary nor excessive, and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the strict requirement for timely disclosures.", "held": "The Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding no arbitrariness or excess in its imposition and confirming that the disclosure requirements are strict. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the importance of timely compliance for future cases.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the imposed penalty for the delayed disclosure is arbitrary, excessive, or justified given the mandatory nature of disclosure requirements.", "statutes": { "Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011": "2. Appellants are aggrieved by the adjudication order dated April 30, 2014 whereby penalty of ` 4 lac has been imposed upon appellants jointly and severally for violating Regulation 30(2) read with 30(3) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (SAST Regulations, 2011 for short).", "Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992": "5. Once it is submitted that there is a delay in making disclosures to the stock exchange as contemplated under Regulation 30(2) read with Regulation 30(3) of SAST Regulations, 2011 penalty is imposable upon the appellants under Section 15 A(b) of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 irrespective of the fact that disclosures have been made to the target company within the stipulated time." } } }, "counsels": [ "Mr. Ramesh Mishra (Practicing Company Secretary for the Appellants)", "Mr. Mihir Mody (Advocate for the Respondent)" ], "delivered_date": "02.09.2014", "facts": "The appellants made an open offer for shares of Green Earth Resources and Projects Ltd. and were required to disclose details of that offer to the stock exchange by April 12, 2012. They actually submitted the disclosure on May 14, 2012, causing a 31-day delay. An adjudication order dated April 30, 2014 imposed a penalty of four lakh rupees on the appellants. They filed an appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal contesting this penalty, which was heard at the present stage.", "final_status": "dismissed", "first_party": [ "1. Mr. Rishiraj Agarwal, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400053, rep. by Mr. Ramesh Mishra (Practicing Company Secretary)", "2. M/s. Anarcon Resources Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata 700001, rep. by Mr. Ramesh Mishra (Practicing Company Secretary)", "3. M/s. Shri Hanuman Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata 700001, rep. by Mr. Ramesh Mishra (Practicing Company Secretary)", "4. Mrs. Sangeeta Agarwal, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400053, rep. by Mr. Ramesh Mishra (Practicing Company Secretary)", "5. Mrs. Lalita Agarwal, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400053, rep. by Mr. Ramesh Mishra (Practicing Company Secretary)", "6. Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400053, rep. by Mr. Ramesh Mishra (Practicing Company Secretary)" ], "grouped_statutes": { "Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011": [ "2. Appellants are aggrieved by the adjudication order dated April 30, 2014 whereby penalty of ` 4 lac has been imposed upon appellants jointly and severally for violating Regulation 30(2) read with 30(3) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (SAST Regulations, 2011 for short)." ], "Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992": [ "5. Once it is submitted that there is a delay in making disclosures to the stock exchange as contemplated under Regulation 30(2) read with Regulation 30(3) of SAST Regulations, 2011 penalty is imposable upon the appellants under Section 15 A(b) of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 irrespective of the fact that disclosures have been made to the target company within the stipulated time." ] }, "held": "The Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding no arbitrariness or excess in its imposition and confirming that the disclosure requirements are strict. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the importance of timely compliance for future cases.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": [ "Whether the imposed penalty for the delayed disclosure is arbitrary, excessive, or justified given the mandatory nature of disclosure requirements." ], "prayer": "", "reserved_date": null, "second_party": [ "1. Securities and Exchange Board of India, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051, rep. by Mr. Mihir Mody (Advocate)" ], "statutes": { "Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011": "2. Appellants are aggrieved by the adjudication order dated April 30, 2014 whereby penalty of ` 4 lac has been imposed upon appellants jointly and severally for violating Regulation 30(2) read with 30(3) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (SAST Regulations, 2011 for short).", "Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992": "5. Once it is submitted that there is a delay in making disclosures to the stock exchange as contemplated under Regulation 30(2) read with Regulation 30(3) of SAST Regulations, 2011 penalty is imposable upon the appellants under Section 15 A(b) of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 irrespective of the fact that disclosures have been made to the target company within the stipulated time." }, "statutes_headnotes": { "Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011": "\u2014 Delay in statutory disclosures for open offer \u2014 31-day delay \u2014 Imposition of four lakh rupees penalty upheld \u2014 Strict compliance emphasized \u2014 Appeal dismissed.", "Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992": "\u2014 Delay in making disclosures \u2014 Section 15 A(b) imposes strict liability for 31-day delay \u2014 Unintentional delay not accepted \u2014 Penalty of four lakh rupees not arbitrary or excessive \u2014 Timely disclosures mandated under Regulation 30(2) read with Regulation 30(3) of SAST Regulations, 2011 \u2014 Appeal dismissed." } }, "summary": { "formatted_summary": "The appellants appealed against a penalty imposed for a 31-day delay in submitting mandatory disclosures to the stock exchange regarding their open offer. The Tribunal found the penalty neither arbitrary nor excessive, and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the strict requirement for timely disclosures." } }